Thanks Brian, some insight always helps us all to understand change.
I entirely agree with the ethos of allocating places for the final based on painting and outstanding sportsmanship.
I also agree with the 30,10,1 scoring system. If you are on the top tables playing equally good players the old 20-0 results should in theory be few and far between, I feel the old system penalised players for being on the top tables against the top players.
I am keen to hear you thoughts on a couple of points though about the new format:
To me the biggest issue with the current qualification process is that the there are 2 or 3 dominant armies out there arguably Iron Warriors, Blood Angels and there is an element of if you can't beat them join them. With qualification becoming tougher in terms of tournament placings do you have any plans to look at any sort of restrictions or comp score?
Secondly, some of the painting standards are not great. I realise that not everyone is a talented painter however often you can clearly see a distinct lack of effort in many cases where the minimum criteria is either not or barely met. Are you planning to raise the minimum standards? I have played against a few copy and paste uber lists where the painting was the absolute minium required, yet these armies seem to frequent the upper reaches of the final standings.
Finally, on more than one occasion me and my mates have scratched our heads at some of the nominations for best painted army. At this year final there was certainly one well below average nomination. I tend to give the judges the benefit of the doubt and put this down to administration of the numbers, but I have seen a few shockers. Do you plan to tighten up in this area now that there is so much as stake and are you planning to award places to all or some of the nominations.
No sure if there are solutions to all of these, just keen to hear your thoughts.